WRIA 14 Salmon Habitat Recovery Committee

2016Salmon Habitat Recovery Process Guide

Introduction

The intent of this document is to guide prospective sponsors through the process for developing a project proposal for consideration by the WRIA 14 Lead Entity for the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB)grant cycle. (Pursuant to Chapter 77.85 RCW and SRFB policies, all projects seeking funds administered by the SRFB must be reviewed and prioritized by a lead entity group in order to be considered for funding by the SRFB). Additionally, this guide is intended for all Lead Entity Committee members and members of the public as a reference and guiding document for this 2016 funding cycle.

The Salmon Habitat Protection and Restoration Plan for Water Resource Inventory Area 14 – Kennedy / Goldsborough identifies and prioritizes projects that protect and restore habitat for salmonids that occur in the marine and freshwater environments of Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 14. The strategy is intended to focus freshwater restoration efforts towards the benefit of Coho salmon, which are in a downward trend in South Puget Sound, and preservation of freshwater habitats for the benefit of Coho and chum salmon. Chum salmon in South Puget Sound are healthy and it is the WRIA 14 Habitat Workgroup’s intent to sustain these healthy populations.

Projects or programs that consider all stocks and life stages are a priority for the WRIA. Subbasins and marine shorelines having restoration potential must incorporate habitat functions for all life history phases, which include spawning, rearing, and migration.

Vision

We envision natural watershed processes in the freshwater and marine environments of WRIA 14 that preserve or enhance biologically diverse runs of salmon capable of self-sustaining natural reproduction. We will achieve this by implementing strategic actions to maximize the productive capacity of the habitat.

We envision a community that supports these efforts through land-use and development choices that emphasize naturally functioning aquatic systems. We will do this by working with local partners to provide outreach and education information to the public in many different forms to reach and involve the broadest possible segments of the population.

The outcomes we intend to achieve through our efforts are:

  • A process to rank and coordinate SRFB projects
  • Integration of this salmon habitat restoration and protection plan into larger watershed plans and the larger South Puget Sound Salmon Recovery
  • Increased public awareness of salmon habitat needs
  • Increased predictability of success when applying for project funding
  • Linkage of co-managers
  • Renewed funding
  • Building a positive reputation and strong relationships between the community and government organizations
  • The full participation of citizens in restoring and protecting salmon habitat
  • Maintaining and building momentum for salmon recovery
  • Provide habitat conditions that support historical salmonid distributions

Strategic goals

  1. Protect habitat through conservation easements and acquisition where the habitat is intact
  2. Restore functions in areas where natural processes can be recovered, not just symptoms treated
  3. Address gaps in our knowledge of fish populations, fish use, and condition of natural processes
  4. Give priority to projects that directly benefit high priority salmonid stocks
  5. Give priority to intact watersheds

Protection

Protection efforts in WRIA 14 will focus on areas of functional habitat that have a high threat of development or land use changes that will deleteriously impact and/or have the potential to lead to aquatic habitat degradation. Protection projects will conserve critical aquatic habitats and/or landscape features that directly influence the natural processes within a watershed/marine shoreline. These efforts will also target key habitat that provides the most benefit to salmonids. Restoration of vital habitat functions may also be a component of a protection project.

Restoration

Restoration efforts in WRIA 14 will focus to restore the natural watershed functions. These efforts will take place in the freshwater watersheds and marine shorelines where it is most attainable to successfully restore the natural processes to benefit salmonids.

Potential restoration areas within WRIA 14 will include those watershed systems that have a greater potential to restore habitat functions. Restoration efforts will address the problems impacting the natural processes rather than their symptoms.

Freshwater: Geographic / Project Priorities

As a general approach, lowland freshwater habitat suitable for chum spawning is a priority for protection and restoration as the chum runs within WRIA 14 are healthy and maintaining that health is a priority.

With the declining Coho populations, Coho are a priority stock for both restoration and protection. This headwater species is dependent upon the freshwater for major portions of its lifestages for spawning adults and rearing for juveniles as they spend up to two years in the streams before out-migrating to the marine waters.

In order to better evaluate habitat conditions in WRIA 14 a strong priority will be given to address data gaps in both freshwater and marine shoreline areas.

The Co-managers (Squaxin Island Tribe, WDFW) have developed a stream ranking model for the South Sound (2005), based on basin size and intactness and species use, among other parameters (Table 4). While this ranking identifies the largest healthiest streams capable of producing the most fish, using the ranking in the strategy is not as simple as limiting projects to these “key streams”. This strategy considers the output of the ranking, but more significantly, it considers needs of specific stocks within their specific geographic range as the main framework to develop priorities.

Table 4. Stream ranking using the Co-manager’s model, as adopted by the LE.

GENERAL STREAM PRIORITY / Tier
A / B / C
Cranberry / Campbell / Pickering Passage Tribs
Deer / CountyLine / Shelton
Goldsborough / Hiawata / Uncle Johns
Gosnell / Mill / Lynch
Johns / Malaney
Kennedy / Schneider
Schumocher / Sherwood / Snodgrass
Skookum

Guiding Principles

The project or program considers all stocks and life stages.

Subbasins and marine shorelines having restoration potential must incorporate habitat functions for all life history phases, which include spawning, rearing, and migration.

WRIA 14 gives strong consideration to projects that benefit salmonids listed under the Endangered Species Act and those ranked as critical or depressed under Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI). With the declining Coho populations and risk of ESA listing, Coho are a priority stock for both restoration and protection. This headwater species is dependent upon the freshwater for major portions of its lifestages for spawning adults and rearing for juveniles as they spend up to two years in the streams before out-migrating to the marine waters it remains committed to its vision of a multi-species approach.

Additionally, to ensure the continued health of chum runs within South Sound, chum are a priority for restoration and preservation activities.

The project or program increases the potential for natural productivity.

The long-term health of salmonids in WRIA 14 depends on self-sustaining salmon reproducing at sustainable levels. Ultimately, successful projects must provide a direct or indirect link to an increase in salmon numbers.

The project or program has the potential for long-term success.

Projects and programs must demonstrate a certainty of success by relying on proven best available science and best management practices in their design and implementation. There must also be a clear commitment towards monitoring and maintenance of a project or program to guarantee long-term duration of the benefit to salmonids.

Adaptive management entails relying on scientific methods to test the results of a project or program so that adjustments can happen appropriately to provide the greatest opportunity for project success. Good projects and programs employ a strong adaptive management approach within its design, along with the capacity to accommodate the need for change when necessary.

The project or program addresses priority data gaps.

The limiting factors analysis clearly communicates the breadth of information still missing about existing conditions in WRIA 14 subbasins. These gaps prevent biologists and communities alike from making the best decisions that adequately address the habitat needs in a logical, prescriptive, and efficient manner.

WRIA 14 encourages projects and programs that address information gaps identified as “High Priority Projects and Programs” within individual subbasins.

Community Values

Although a salmon habitat protection and restoration project or program must pass a review regarding its technical merits, simultaneously it must deal with community issues and concerns in an effective and appropriate manner.

There are areas throughout WRIA 14 that present pockets of opportunity for outreach, places that have historically been difficult to perform restoration activities but could house the keystone landowner that is pivotal for recovery of a given system.

The Lead Entity encourages and supports projects that have the opportunity to incorporate an educational element to some extent, whether it be active or indirect. These opportunities are important to share information to the community about why salmon habitat protection and restoration is crucial.

Actions incorporated into projects that provide opportunities for more effective education are:

Publicizing good stewardship practices and actions

Getting the word out about salmon habitat recovery and restoration efforts through a website, educational signs, radio ads, written information distributed in high traffic areas, public access TV shows, and interpretive trails

Giving presentations before community groups during and after completion of projects

WRIA 14 Salmon Habitat Recovery Workgroup

Committee Roles and Ranking Process

The WRIA 14 Salmon Habitat Recovery Workgroup (Workgroup) is currently comprised of 15 technical and citizen members representing the counties, Tribes, environmental community, citizens, landowners, state agencies, agriculture, shellfish growers, and other interested or affected people and groups within the area. The Workgroup is the combined Technical Advisory Group and the Citizen Advisory Committee.

Past Workgroups have created a WRIA-wide strategy to provide a regional understanding of the reasons that salmonid habitat is impaired, what caused those impairments, how to restore those habitats and what the desired future conditions look like.

Beginning in 2006, the Workgroup began developing a 3-Year-Work-Program to streamline implementation of the Chinook Recovery Plan. In 2016 this was changed to a 4 Year Workplan. This annually updated capital improvement plan (CIP) facilitates the multiple layers of review which occur in the SRFB process in addition to focusing on the most strategically important projects for salmon. Moving from an annual review process to a CIP approach allows the Lead Entity to more fully integrate priorities, sequencing, and work towards H-integration.

The fundamental role of the Workgroup is to review, score and rank all projects submitted to the Lead Entity and submit them to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board, in accordance with RCW 77.85.

The WRIA 14 Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) perform important, unique and complementary roles (both are defined in the following section). Each plays a rolethat is essential to ensure the best projects are proposed for salmon recovery and that the projects will increase the technical and community support for expanded and ever-increasing effectiveness of Lead Entities at both the local and regional levels.

Annual Process Revisions

The 4YearWorkplan is updated by the TAG and submitted to the full Workgroup for approval each year, prior to the draft application deadline. Beginning in 2006, all projects proposed for SRFB and PSAR funding must be consistent with the updated Workplan. Exceptions may exist, but these must be approved by the Workgroup and justified within the meeting summary.

Beginning in 2010, all projects that have been listed on the Workplan, all funded projects and projects identified within local studies are listed online on the Habitat Work Schedule This provides a project summary, lists the project phases, will contain relevant background reports and tracks progress towards a specific goal.

Project Ranking Procedures

The entire Workgroup works together to rank the proposed SRFB and PSAR projects for each grant round. The TAG discusses elements of the project that relate to benefit to salmon and certainty of success while the CAC discusses elements of the project that relate to community outreach and involvement. This discussion begins in March at the monthly LE meeting when each sponsor has an opportunity to present their project(s) after submitting a Letter of Intent (LOI) and continues throughout the grant round. The final discussion occurs on the project ranking meeting, following the presentation of each project by the project proponent. Questions are asked of the sponsor upon completion of their presentation, in addition to have general discussion time at the end of all presentations.

Following the final general discussion time, each member ranking a given proposal will hand their ranking sheets to the LE Coordinator. The Coordinator will establish the z-score for each project. The z-score determines the project’s overall ranking within the project list.

Projects may only be moved on the ranked list by the Citizen’s Committee for specific reasons as outlined below:

  1. If the last ranking project ranked within the funding allocation is only partially funded and cannot go forward with partial funds and the project below it is able to be implemented with those funds, then the ranking can be altered;
  2. If a project has substantial uncertainties (such as budgetary or permitting) remaining even though it is technically sound and supports community values, it may be moved within the ranked list after discussion.

The Citizen’s Committee may consult with the TAG to ascertain the rationale behind the technical aspects of a project and/or how the technical ranking for a project was determined.

This process is set up to meet the requirements of the state statute creating the SRFB and the Lead Entity program, and is designed to ensure that projects proposed for SRFB funding are technically sound, address priority issues, and are broadly supported by diverse community interests.

To qualify as a voting member, individuals must attend two meetings prior (or if not the site visit, the meeting prior wherein project proponents present their draft proposals via PowerPoint) to the vote and have reviewed the current year’s 4 Year Workplan,the Salmon Habitat Restoration and Protection Plan for WRIA 14, and the South Puget Sound Recovery Chapter. Members of the public are welcome to give comments and ask questions during the annual ranking meeting but may not vote unless they have fulfilled the above requirements.

Each representative, organization, or group shall appoint one person to represent that organization when a vote is called for or necessary. Organizations are however eligible to have a representative on the Citizen’s Committee and another on the Technical Committee, as each committee is responsible for ranking proposals on different and specific criteria. Also, as outlined with RCW 77.85, membership on each committee should represent the local community and include Regional Fisheries Enhancement Groups, Tribes, Conservation Districts, non-profits, etc. To the extent possible, voters shall be informed participants, actively involved in the business of the Workgroup. All voting decisions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of those present. A quorum of members will be one-third of the voting members. These rules do not restrict the number of people who may participate in meetings, merely those who may participate in voting decisions.

If a two-thirds vote fails, the issue will be discussed further until the two-thirds majority can be satisfied. The Coordinator will strive to ensure that all members are given opportunity to express their thoughts and will provide additional information as available and necessary to resolve an impasse. If obtaining the two-thirds majority continues to be difficult, Workgroup members can decide to table the issue for later discussion and resolution using the decision making steps outlined in 3.1 of the Process Guide.

The decisions of the Workgroup are final.

Ground Rules

The following rules shall govern the participation of project sponsors, TAG and CAC members, and members of the general public during the habitat project list process.

Project Sponsors

  • Project sponsors must submit a complete proposal in accordance with the schedule set forth by the WRIA 14 Workgroup.
  • A complete proposal includes all required information requested by the SRFB within the application materials and by the WRIA 14 Workgroup, as requested by the Lead Entity Coordinator.
  • Proposals are public upon submission of a Letter of Intent and are available in detail utilizing the RCO PRISM database. However, sensitive information can be grayed out until the entire project is made public at the SRFB funding meeting.
  • Projects submitted for consideration must address the strategic plan, recovery plan, 4 Year Workplan, limiting factors, watershed processes, or supporting data.
  • Sponsors will be asked to make written and oral presentations to the Workgroup, in addition to leading one or more site visits for the benefit of the Workgroup and for evaluation purposes of the SRFB Technical Panel.
  • The TAG will recommend modifications to a proposal to the project sponsor. It is for the benefit of the project that these suggestions are made. It is up to the discretion of the sponsor to heed this advice, knowing that project ranking may be affected by this decision. Once the CAC has finalized the ranked habitat list, the project sponsor will make the Workgroup aware of any scope or budget changes made to the project. The Workgroup can choose what action to take:
  • support the project and the changes;
  • pull the project from funding recommendation,
  • Project sponsors are given one rough draft review with the TAG to incorporate beneficial changes, expand partnerships, etc.
  • During the combined TAG / CAC ranking meeting, project sponsors will be admitted to the room, but asked to remain quiet during discussions save for questions asked directly of them by a Workgroup member. Sponsors will not be allowed to advocate for their proposals during the ranking meeting. Those who do will be given one verbal warning. If the conduct continues, they will be asked to leave.

The Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) evaluates projects proposed to the Lead Entity with the assistance of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG). The TAG evaluates each project based on its technical merits, with an emphasis on the projects benefit to salmon and certainty of success as provided within this guide. The CAC works with the TAG to determine the final ranking of the projects based upon their technical merits in addition to how well the project fits within the Salmon Habitat Restoration and Protection Plan for WRIA 14, public involvement, and cost appropriateness. The Lead Entity Coordinator then compiles the entire list of proposals in ranked order and submits them with lead entity details as one package to the SRFB for funding consideration.